Does the reading of the nKJV in 1 Cor 12:3 change the diety of Jesus?

That is unmitigated hyperbole.

 

I am confused by your comment.

.....
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor. 12:3 NKJV.
.....

True, I see no explicit definite article with "Lord" in the Greek. I checked both my Aland and TR greek texts. However, I don't see a definite article with "Holy Spirit" or "Spirit of God" in the greek either. Yet here we have "the Holy Spirit" and "the Spirit of God" but "Lord" (no "the") in the same NKJV verse.

The greek rules are complicated. Maybe I am missing something. Can you tell me how they decided to add the definite article (in the translation) in the one case and not in the other?

A.F.

 

hy•per•bo•le \hi-"per-be-(')le\ n : extravagant exaggeration used as a figure of speech
(c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved

No, it isn't.

It's the same arguments that Correa and most KJVO's throw out about the KJV, except I inserted the original texts in place of it.

 

Whenever there is a definite article present, it should always be translated, and it's always referring to something specific. For example, in John 1:29, the definite article “the” is used with the word “Lamb” to emphasize to them that this is the lamb for which they had had been looking. The lamb; the only one. John obviously uses this to make certain they understand which lamb he’s talking about, much like the expression “the prophet” is referring to someone specifically.

By the same token, some definite articles can be understood, even when they're not present. To use an English idea to express this idea, around here, if you're out in one of the villages and you were to say, "I'm going to town", they know exactly which town to which you are referring. The precise statement would be, "the town of me".

In the New World Translation John 1:1 is rendered as: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Notice that the word “God” has been changed to the phrase "a god." (Which is technically true grammatically, but Greek grammar sometimes omits the definite article “the” when it is certain what you are referring to.)

This ocassionally leads to some confusion, and 1 Corinthians 12:3 is a prime example of that.

The expression "the spirit of God" is literally "God's spirit". So, it's a specific spirt (the spirit of God) and the KJV translators chose to translate it that way instead of "God's spirit".

"Lord" could be a title or a postion. Is he the Lord? Certainly. Is he Lord in your live? That's not certain. (Don't get huffy, I'm using "you" generically, not specifically.) Which one is this verse talking about? Well, it says that no one is able to call him Lord (position) except by the power of the Holy Spirit (or by having a holy spirit).

As far as "Holy Spirit", some translators translate it as "the Holy Spirit" and others translate it as "a holy spirit". (As in, you can't do this unless you have a holy spirit.) Personally, I agree with the majority that it is "The Holy Spirit", but both are possible. (Another passage that is confused by translating "spirit" as "ghost"; the word "spirit" appears twice in this verse and for whatever unfathomable reason, they translated the second one as "ghost".)

So, "Lord" and "The Lord" are both acceptable grammatically, but "Lord" is more appropriate, and I think more applicable to the verse.

 

There you have it. The translators of the 1611 KJV corrected the Greek. The manuscripts themselves aren't the perfect Word of God----so the translators made it so.

Bro Tony

 

You crack me up Ed.:laugh:

A.F.

 

Thanks for the dictionary reading.

When I was in the Coast Guard years ago, standing watch in the radio room, we weren't supposed to have outside reading material. All we had was official radio manuals and the dictionary. I chose the dictionary to read during quiet times. Later I went to college on the (post Viet Nam) GI bill. I found that all of those hours editing messages and reading the dictionary paid off. Sadly, after some years of technical reports and email I can't trust my composition, diction or spelling

Anyhow, you mistook my meaning. I was referring to your [deleted] comment. KJVO's are not [deleted]. Most of us believe the Bible pretty much as you do. We just draw the line in a different place.

A.F.

 

There you have it. The textual critics corrected the Greek. The manuscripts themselves aren't the perfect Word of God----so the textual critics made it so.

Was the world in darkness before Wescott and Hort?


My apologies to Bro Tony. I just couldn't resist.

I have to disagree with William's contention that the KJV is better than the Greek originals though.

A.F.

 

Ed, Is your NKJV "honest?" Does it have "The" in italics before "Holy Spirit" in 1 Cor. 12:3? It was inserted by the translator in both cases.

My Church requires a quorum before conducting votes. What constitutes a quorum on the BB?

A.F.

 

Actually, the 1611 edition of the KJV does not have the "the" in italics before "spirit of God" or before "holy Ghost" in 1 Cor. 12:3, and it did not have the "s" of "Spirit" capitalized. It is not in italics in a present edition of the KJV that I checked.

Would you claim that the KJV translators were not honest for not putting it in italics?

 

No. I don't know any translation that does. My question was in reference to Ed's comment:

" Some KJVs are honest and have the word 'the' in italics,...."

That comment would seem to imply that some are dishonest. Of course, if we apply that notion uniformly we would eventually come to the incorrect conclusion that all versions are dishonest.

A.F.